Andhra Pradesh Court November 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Mukkamala Venkata Narayana Reddy Vs. Paidimarri Subbaramaiah (Died) an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-12-2002
Reported in: 2003(4)ALT95
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri Suresh Reddy representing Bali Reddy and Ranga Reddy, the counsel representing the respective parties.2. The unsuccessful defendant in O.S. No. 11/84 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Markapur had preferred this Appeal aggrieved by the Judgment and decree made therein decreeing the suit for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale. The 1st plaintiff/1st respondent died and the 2nd respondent who is already on record had been declared as legal representative of the deceased 1st respondent and the 3rd respondent also was brought on record as legal representative of the 1st respondent by order dated 28-3-1990 in C.M.P.NO. 15985/89.3. The case of the plaintiffs as pleaded in the plaint is that the appellant herein/ defendant agreed to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiffs for Rs. 15,900/- and executed an agreement of sale on 28-3-1977 and it was also pleaded that the total sale consideration was paid to the plaintiffs and they w...
Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. V. Tulsiram and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)ALD509
S.R. Nayak, J.1. The substantial question that arises in this appeal for our consideration and decision is whether the subject land could constitute 'jagir' within the meaning of that term as defined in Clause (f) of Section 2 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation, 1358-Fasli, for short 'the Regulation'. According to the Government of Andhra Pradesh and its authorities who are the appellants and the impleaded respondent Nos. 7 to 104, the subject lands constitute a 'jagir' within the meaning of that term and, therefore, it vested in the State Government whereas according to the contesting respondents who are the writ petitioners, the Regulation has no application to the subject lands by virtue of the provisions of Section 18 of the Regulation. In other words, according to the contesting respondents, the subject lands are the patta lands of the vendors of the petitioners' vendees. 2. According to the writ petitioners, originally Sultanpalli village of S...
R. Seshagiri Rao and ors. Vs. University of Hyderabad and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)ALD720
ORDERS. Ananda Reddy, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the aggrieved students of the 1st respondent University against the order of rustication passed by the 2nd respondent in Proceedings, vide Ref.No.R/Acad/2002, dated 11-1-2002 under which all the petitioners were rusticated with immediate effect.2. Subsequently, by way of amendment, the petitioners sought for quashing of the Proceedings, vide Lr.No.UH/R/ ACAD/ 2002, dated 31-3-2002 issued by the Executive Council of the 1st respondent University in appeal modifying the order passed by the 2nd respondent and reduced the period of rustication to two years in respect of some of the petitioners and to one year in respect of others.3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners 1 to 6 are prosecuting their Research Study in various departments. Petitioner No.7 is doing M. Phil., in History, while the petitioners 8 and 9 are prosecuting their Post-Graduation in History and Anthropology respectively. It is stated that some of t...
D. Kyathappa and ors. Vs. K.L. Siddaramappa
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)ALD834; 2002(6)ALT435
ORDERA. Gopal Reddy, J.1. The short and important question that arises for consideration in this revision is 'in judging the pending revisions should the High Court apply the criteria in Section 115 CPC as amended by CPC (Amendment) Act, 1999 (Act 46/99) or as it stood prior to amendment on its coming into force with effect from 1-7-2002'.2. As the said issue frequently arises for consideration in almost all cases which come up for admission after 1-7-2002 and also at the time of hearing the cases which were admitted prior to 1-7-2002 and having regard to the importance I requested the learned Senior Counsel Sri Challa Seetharamaiah to assist the Court apart from the Counsel appearing for the parties.3. It is relevant to note the British given procedural laws of 1898 and 1908 was all that the country inherited, they met a need that was why they had lasted except certain minor amendments to the provisions of 1908 to suit the need, whereas the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 has been re...
Devi Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Its Administrative Officer and Power ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALT(Cri)127
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Petitioner filed C.C. No. 385 of 1995 against the 1st respondent for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court took cognizance of the offence and it appears that the N.B.W. issued to the 1st respondent could not be executed. A Commissioner seems to have been appointed to facilitate execution of the N.B.W. by the police. On 18-9-2002 the Commissioner filed a report that the N.B.W. could not be executed. On such report, the learned Magistrate passed the following order:'This is a case of year 1995. If the complainant fails to produce the accused on the next date of hearing by taking appropriate steps, complaint will be dismissed for default'.2. The above order of the learned Magistrate is being questioned by the petitioner/complainant in this petition.3. Since the accused would not be in the hands of the complainant, it is not for the complainant to secure the presence of the accused. If the police are unable to execute the N.B.W., issu...
Jangili Venkateswarlu and ors. Vs. Bandaru Omkaraiah and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD259; 2003(3)ALT612
G. Rohini, J. 1. The defendants are the appellants in this Letters Patent Appeal which is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 3.9.1996 in (Tr.) A.S. No. 2132 of 1984 whereunder the learned single Judge set aside the judgment and decree dated 30.3.1981 in O.S.No. 61 of 1970 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Chirala, and remitted the matter to the Trial Court.2. O.S.No. 61 of 1970 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Chirala, was filed by the 1st respondent herein (Bandaru Omkarayya) along with two others seeking a decree for permanent injunction restraining the sole defendant by name Jangili Bala Kotaiah from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule land. We shall refer the parties as they were arrayed in the Trial Court in O.S.No. 61 of 1970.3. The case of the plaintiffs who are three in number was that they purchased Ac.4.84 cents of land situated at Kothapet from the defendant under a registered sale deed da...
Rbf Nidhi Limited and anr. Vs. State of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALD(Cri)996; 2003(1)ALT(Cri)198; II(2003)BC173; [2003]44SCL40(AP)
ORDERS.R.K. Prasad, J. 1. The petitioners who are accused 1 and 2 in C.C. No. 1012 of 2000 on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Criminal Courts, Secunderabad, seek quashing of the proceedings by invoking inherent powers. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 8.7.1999 the respondents 2, 3 and 4 who are defacto complainants deposited Rs. 31,000/-, Rs. 7,500/- and Rs. 41,400/- with the first petitioner company as a short-term deposit for a period of 90 days. After maturity, on 7.2.2000 acheque bearing No. 010696 was issued in favour of second respondent for Rs. 82,961/- drawn on ICICI Banking Corporation Limited, S.D. Road Branch, Secunderabad signed by two whole:time Directors. The said cheque was deposited into the Bank and the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, a legal notice is stated to have been issued on 31.7.2000. 3. While so, the first petitioner herein sent a demand draft bearing No. 26137 dated 8.8.2000 for an amount of Rs. 4,150/-. In response to legal noti...
G.J. Joseph Vs. T.S. Babu Rao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)ALD479; 2003(1)ALT207
ORDERT. Meena Kumari, J.1. The present contempt case has been filed alleging that the respondents herein have wilfully and deliberately violated the orders of this Court dated 22.3.2002 passed in CMP No. 5810 of 2002 in CRP No. 1223 of 2002.2. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of the contempt case, are as follows:3. The petitioner herein filed OS No. 1472 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Junior civil Judge, Hyderabad East and North, Ranga Reddy district for grant of permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein defendants in the suit and their followers from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property situated at Little Lamb Church of Vanasthalipuram i.e., house situated within the Little Lamb Church including the office room, watchman house, bore well, lavatory and baptism tank. The petitioner herein also filed IA No. 8471 of 2001 in OS No. 1472 of 2001 for grant of ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from i...
Union Bank of India Vs. A. Natesam Chetty and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALD705
ORDERDalava Subrahmanyam, J.1. The revision petitioner filed the revision against the decree and order in LA. No. 187/1991 in O.S. No. 101/1978 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Puttur in dismissing the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the final decree petition.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:3. The revision petitioner filed O.S. No. 101/78 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chittoor and a preliminary decree was passed on 3.3.1980 against the respondents-defendants. Subsequently, in view of the jurisdiction of the Courts, I.A. No. 187/91 was filed before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Puttur and an application was filed to condone the delay of 2948 days in filing the final decree petition. The learned Subordinate Judge, Puttur held that the petition is not maintainable under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and hence the petition was barred by limitation and accordingly it was dismissed.4. Aggrieved again...
Shyamala and ors. Vs. Ram Bilas Tapadia and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD593; 2004(1)ALT22
Dalava Subrahmanyam, J. 1. The appellants-Defendants 1, 4 and 5 filed the second appeal against the decree and judgment inA.S.No. 140 of 1987 dated 14.6.1990 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in allowing the appeal and setting aside the decree and judgment in O.S. No. 761 of 1977 on the file of the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The second appeal was disposed of on 18.1.1999 and thereupon the 1st respondent-plaintiff filed Civil Appeal 760 of 2001 (SLP 8739 of 1999) on the file of the Supreme Court of India and the Supreme Court set aside the decree and judgment in S.A. No. 284 of 1991 and the second appeal was remanded to this Court to decide the second appeal on merits after framing substantial questions of law, if any, arises in the case. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 3. Ram Bilas Tapadia, who is the plaintiff, filed O.S. No. 761 of 1977 on the file of the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad praying ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »